BeAware Supply Chain Resource Efficiency

Sector Report

Modern Methods of
Improving resource efficiency in Construction (MMC)
construction product manufacture
 BeAware is a TSB1 and industry funded project helping construction product
manufacturers to make more efficient use of materials and processes. Use of
resources and waste generation associated with the product across its supply
chain are the two key areas of focus.

ument to
d th ro u ghout this doc
C’ is u se which
The term ‘MM c e ss es and technologies
describe a ra
nge of pro nd various
a tion , o ff-s ite assembly a
bric ations.
involve prefa p ply chain specific
form s o f su

Project background

Resource efficiency improvements should always be This guidance has been developed for those working
addressed within the context of the overall environmental in, representing or advising the MMC sector, to raise
impact of the product. A simplified environmental awareness of the importance of reducing the use of
assessment was carried out on 20 construction materials across a product’s lifecycle.
products as part of the BeAware project, using life Rising costs of materials, the drive to divert waste
cycle assessment (LCA) data. See the Overview of from landfill and an increased focus on protecting the
Methodology document for further details on how this environment are the key drivers to improving resource
was carried out. efficiency. Moreover, using materials efficiently and
The supply chain for each product was also investigated reducing waste can produce significant cost savings,
to ascertain where resource efficiency improvements as well as improving productivity and contributing to a
could be implemented. This involved examining how company’s triple bottom line.
a product is distributed, installed, maintained and This document builds on existing industry advice and
eventually disposed of. Identified areas of improvement activities, whilst highlighting additional sector based
included reduction of waste, efficient raw material improvements to further improve resource efficiency. It
use, material substitution, recycled content, packaging is a part of a series of reports that are free to download
materials and options, and diversion of waste from from the BeAware website2. Similar sector guidance
landfill. is available for polymers, precast concrete and timber
The results of the BeAware MMC product assessments windows.
form the basis of this guidance document. Also
included are the findings from an interactive workshop
held in April 2008, whereupon seven MMC product
manufacturers discussed the combined results generated The Modular
Association and Portable
from BeAware’s MMC product studies. (MBPA) are in Building
the Modern M dustry partne
ethods of Con rs from
sector on the struction (MM
BeAware pro C)
ject.

1. Previously DTI, now the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) under the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/innovation/technologystrategyboard/page40217.html
2. http://www.beaware.org.uk
 The MMC sector

There are five categories used by the Housing In 2006, the MMC market split was:
Corporation to classify an MMC (housing) n £414 million for volumetric
construction system3: (based on manufacturer’s selling price)
n Off-site manufactured - volumetric n 52,797 timber frame units
(three-dimensional units produced in a factory, (houses and commercial)
fully fitted out before being transported to site
and stacked onto prepared foundations to form n £61 million for light gauge steel frame

dwellings). (which equates to around 6,100 units)

n Off-site manufactured - panellised n 750 SIPS units (estimate)5.

(flat panel units built in a factory and transported to

site for assembly into a three-dimensional structure It is predicted that the markets will continue to increase
or to fit within an existing structure). in size over the coming years, driven by the housing and
skills shortages in the building sector.
n Off-site manufactured - hybrid
(volumetric units integrated with panellised systems). On a construction project, the manufacturers may
choose to use their own erection team or specialist
n Off-site manufactured -
subcontractors that have been trained in the on-site
sub-assemblies and components
fabrication of MMC products. Problems may arise
(larger components that can be incorporated into
when products or systems are bought for a project and
either conventionally built or MMC dwellings).
subsequently erected and installed by a contractor that
n Non-off-site manufactured MMC has not been trained or advised by the manufacturer of
(innovative methods of construction used on-site the system to an appropriate level of expertise.
and the use of conventional components in an
The main contractor is responsible for on-site waste and
innovative way).
must deal with this accordingly.
The raw materials used in MMC are much the same as
those used in traditional construction. MMC systems
normally involve replacing the inner aerated concrete
block with either a timber or steel frame or with precast
concrete. Cladding finishes tend to be completed on-site
in a traditional manner.
Pods are a type of volumetric construction and are
completely fitted out and finished, such as kitchens and
bathrooms coming on-site, including sanitary ware and
tiling, ready to be plumbed in4.

3. Market Transformation Programme Briefing Note BNMMC01: Modern Methods of Construction – Industry, Product and Market Overview. Available from http://www.mtprog.com
4. http://www.mmcnw.org.uk/content/view/67/137/
5. Market Transformation Programme Briefing Note BNMMC01: Modern Methods of Construction – Industry, Product and Market Overview. Available from http://www.mtprog.com
 Current resource efficiency activities in the MMC sector

benefits and waste savings achieved from using different

vo lu m e tric and panellise
The off-sit e
be r, stru ctural insulate
systems (tim
ht g a ug e steel frame) ma
(SIPs) and lig
n e nt b u ilding MMC mark
rma
65% of the pe
The amount of waste generated by the MMC sector in 2006
is estimated at almost 21,000 tonnes. Of this waste, 63% is
from timber frame, 29% is from volumetric and 8% is from
light gauge steel frame and SIPs. If no action is taken, these
waste arisings could increase to 68,000 tonnes by 2020,
owing to the expected take-up of MMC products7.
It is easier to manage waste in a factory environment than
on a construction site which benefits the MMC sector. This is
mainly due to having better control within a manufacturing
process, allowing more effective segregation which in turn,
results in less contamination and greater levels of recycling7.
The Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP), have a
number of case studies on their website8 demonstrating the
forms of MMC construction compared with traditional
d
construction methods. For example, BRE waste measurement
d panels
studies on the SMARTLife project (carried out on behalf
ke up
of WRAP) show a 22% waste reduction using light steel
et6.
frame construction and 11% for timber frame, compared to
traditional methods.
The three SMARTLife studies recorded total waste arisings
on-site and in the factory for different systems of MMC, using
an environmental performance indicator of volume of waste
generated per 100m2 of construction floor area. The following
waste arisings were identified:
n Timber frame (wall panels and floor cassettes):
19.16m3 of waste generated per 100m2 of floor area
n Volumetric steel (modular):
5.51m3 of waste generated per 100m2 of floor area
n Steel frame (walls and floor cassettes):
16.84m3 of waste generated per 100m2 of floor area.
The studies show that the top three waste streams for each
system were plaster/cement (largely comprising plasterboard),
timber and packaging. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the
types of waste arising from the three SMARTLife studies.

Figure 1 - Composition of waste in three MMC projects

100%
Timber

90% Plastics

Plaster/cement
80%
Percentage of waste by type

Packaging
70%
Metals

60% Insulation

Inert
50%
Hazardous
40% Electrical equipment

30% Concrete

Ceramics/bricks
20%
Canteen/office/ad-hoc
10%

0%
Timber frame Steel frame Steel volumetric

6. Offsite Construction Industry Survey 2006, Buildoffsite, 2007

7. Market Transformation Programme Briefing Note BNMMC02: Modern Methods of Construction – Waste Management. Available from http://www.mtprog.com
8. http://www.wrap.org.uk
 BeAware assessment: the environmental impact of MMC products
Seven products in the MMC sector were assessed including timber frame, timber frame with straw bale,
volumetric (modular) steel frame and bathroom pods. In some instances, data supplied for analysis was
incomplete but the data available has been used wherever possible to formulate the outcomes outlined below.
Manufacturing waste
The raw materials inputs change depending upon the system
of MMC being manufactured. Common raw materials include
metal, timber, board materials, plasterboard, concrete, plastic
membranes and mineral or glass wool insulation. Off-cuts of
these raw materials typically end up as waste within the factory
environment.
A considerable amount of sawdust also arises from machining
the timber and board products. Timber and sawdust are usually
segregated at the factory for recycling. Any timber panel
products are usually kept separate from the clean timber as
they are currently difficult to recycle and often end up going to
landfill.
Steel is readily recycled, due to its value and well established
recycling routes.
Greater facilities now exist for plasterboard recycling and most
of the manufacturers analysed who had plasterboard waste
sent it for recycling.
Mineral and glass wool insulation are potentially recyclable,
however, the data returned by manufacturers in this study
suggested that it was being sent to landfill.
Generally, apart from timber, metal, plasterboard and plastic
(from the bathroom pod), all other wasted raw materials are
placed in a mixed skip destined for landfill.
From the products studied, total waste arising from
manufacturing MMC products is on average 4% by weight of
the materials used to manufacture the product. This takes into
account wasted raw materials, packaging and other general
waste. When looking specifically at waste directly resulting from
raw materials used (e.g. from off-cuts etc), this is 2% by weight
on average.
Raw materials are often packaged and it is this packaging
(polythene sheet/wrap, cardboard, metal and plastic banding,
timber pallets and bearers, plastic containers (from adhesive
and paint) and paper sacks) that ends up as waste.
In the manufacturers studied, packaging waste accounted
for at least 20% by weight of all waste. In some cases, it was
as high as 50% by weight of the total waste. Manufacturers
should ensure that they are aware of and are compliant with
packaging regulations and associated legislation and this also
applies to imported packaged goods.
Packaging wastes have various waste management routes
depending on the individual manufacturer. In a number of
cases, polythene film was segregated for recycling and timber
pallets were either reused or sent for recycling along with other
timber waste e.g. off-cuts and timber bearers.
Some manufacturers were sending packaging wastes off-site
in mixed skips destined for landfill, along with other wastes.
Cardboard was either recycled or sent to landfill.
Although there is some good practice with regards to waste,
there is room for improvement in terms of segregation of waste
for recycling. Over half of the manufacturers assessed place the
majority of their packaging wastes into a mixed skip destined
for landfill.
There is also potential to reduce the packaging waste of
incoming raw materials. This can be achieved by working with
suppliers to gain an understanding of why packaging is used on
their products and considering alternative methods to optimise
packaging, such as take back schemes and bulk deliveries.
In addition, it may be possible for the supplier to take back
packaging when they make their next delivery to the factory.
Distribution / installation waste
MMC manufacturers typically add packaging to their finished
product to prevent damage in transit to the construction site.
The packaging used varies depending on the MMC system. A
number of manufacturers use timber pallets and / or bearers,
however, one manufacturer in the BeAware study uses reusable
steel stillages. This is better practice as stillages can be reused
more times than timber pallets which tend to break or are not
returned for reuse.
Some form of polythene sheet or wrap is also used, along with
banding and cardboard in some instances. Other than the steel
stillages, the manufacturers assessed did not take back any of
their packaging.
End of life waste Simplified environmental assessment results
A National Federation of Demolition Contractors (NFDC) The combined results of the simplified environmental
spokesperson commented on how the MMC systems assessments9 for the MMC products identify four key
studied would currently be dealt with at their end of life by areas that yield the most significant environmental
the demolition industry. For timber frame MMC, it was felt impacts:
that the building would not usually be disassembled and
that the frame would most likely be chipped for recycling.
Any board materials would probably go to landfill. Raw materials
Another option would be for all timber based products to
be sent for energy recovery. For panels made up of timber Energy and water
frame with straw bales, it was felt that recovery of the panels
for reuse would only occur if there was sufficient demand Packaging
and value of the materials in doing so.
Waste.
There were further concerns as to whether any damage
would be caused by disassembly of the panels. The most
viable option would probably be shredding the panels Figure 2 shows that the greatest overall
and composting the resulting material or sending it for environmental impact for the MMC systems studied
energy recovery. is from raw materials, responsible for 94% of the
impact. This is followed by energy/water at 3%,
With regards to the bathroom pods, it is very unlikely that
and packaging and waste, both at just over 1%.
they would be removed whole for reuse. This is primarily On average, transportation accounts for 12% of the
because the demolition contractor would not have the raw materials impact.
appropriate expertise to disconnect the pod and remove it
It is important to note that the following results are
without causing damage. based on incomplete datasets and as such, are only
It could also be difficult to find an appropriate market for indicative.
reuse within the short timescale operating on demolition
projects. Any reuse of the pods would be subject to
final condition of the product and the cost of removal.
The plastic used in the pod is likely to end up in a mixed 100%
Environmental impact as a percentage of total impact

skip and destined for landfill and any metals would be 90%
segregated out for recycling.
80% Waste
With the volumetric steel modules, the value in these for 70% Packaging
the demolition contractor is the steel, therefore this would
60% Energy and water
be segregated out for recycling as a minimum. Again, the
demolition contractor would have no knowledge of how to 50% Raw materials

disassemble the modules for reuse. 40%

Other concerns regarding reuse related to building 30%
regulations. For example, would the wiring and insulation
20%
be up to standard for reuse by the time it has reached the
10%
end of its first use?
0%

Figure 2
Average MMC Environmental Impact

9. A number of assumptions have been made during development of the methodology for assessments. These can be viewed in the Overview of Methodology document (available from beaware.org.uk).
Some assumptions may also have been made with regards to the individual product assessments. These cannot be displayed in this report as they are confidential to the companies involved.
 Supply chain resource efficiency: opportunities and barriers

An interactive workshop was held for the MMC sector in April 2008, whereupon MMC product manufacturers
discussed targeted actions to improve resource efficiency in the sector. Discussions centred around the key areas
of waste reduction, diverting waste from landfill (reusing, recycling and recovery) and using recycled materials.
Opportunities and barriers were considered for each stage of the supply chain including manufacture, distribution, installation/
use, and end of life. Actions for the industry were prioritised and the major points form the basis of the sector action plan
detailed later in this document. Some of the key workshop discussions and outcomes are listed below.

Opportunities for resource efficiency Barriers to resource efficiency

across the supply chain across the supply chain

Manufacture
Standardisation of products and materials will help to
reduce waste. Linked to this is an opportunity to educate the
client with regards to product awareness and ensure that
expectations are realistic for specification.
There is potential to use products with greater recycled
content and from sustainable sources. Case studies showing
the benefits of optimising the use of materials in design and
manufacture may encourage companies to address their
manufacturing processes.
Manufacture
Customer specifications requiring bespoke designs delivered in
short timescales can limit considerations for resource efficiency.
This links to customers having a lack of awareness of the
product and knock on effects that their design and specification
decisions have on waste generation.
There is sometimes a lack of awareness of possibilities for
reuse, recycling and recovery of materials. Moreover, logistics
and costs (e.g. for storage) can be prohibitive.

Packaging and distribution Packaging and distribution

Although minimal packaging is typically used on the finished
product, there are opportunities for considering reusable
packaging, such as tarpaulin, rather than single use polythene
sheeting. If reusable packaging is adopted, take back or return
of this packaging will be paramount to its success.
There is also potential for increasing the recycled content
of packaging, particularly that used on raw materials. Close
working with suppliers will provide scope to reduce packaging.
There are costs associated with implementing different
packaging options. A certain level of packaging is needed
for protection and identification/advertising of the supplier. Take
back schemes will require management to ensure they operate
properly, again a further cost.
Incentives may be required to encourage the return of
packaging for reuse. Additional space may also be needed to
store packaging or materials taken back for reuse.

Installation
There are opportunities for the return of surplus components or
fixings for reuse. Using fix packs with an itemised list of what is
needed to construct the system will help drive waste reduction.
It is important that information about the product and how any
wastes can be dealt with are included within the Site Waste
Management Plan for projects.
Monitoring requirements for waste could be reduced when
using MMC provided there is less waste arising. For example,
shorter lead times are required with MMC which means site
activities are minimised compared with traditional construction.
Installation
Developing best practice in terms of Site Waste Management
Plans (SWMPs) may have a small impact on costs. Clients and
main contractors have a responsibility to ensure a SWMP is
produced where the project value exceeds £300K, however,
they may set additional requirements to achieve targets for
waste reduction etc. They will expect the cost of the system to
remain the same even if greater input is required for the SWMP.

End of life End of life

Systems can be potentially dismantled to enable reuse. There
may also be opportunities for the customer to hire the system
instead of buying it, therefore encouraging more consideration
of recovery for refurbishment and reuse at end of use. The
whole life costs and benefits of adopting such a leasing system
would need to be considered to determine financial viability.
Customers expect to have new products and there may be a
perception that second life systems are not as good. Compliance
and testing, for example, for building regulations energy
performance standards may constrain reuse. Products are often
made of composite material which may make them difficult to
identify and segregate for recycling at their end of life.
 Action plan: The way forward for the MMC sector
1.
Tackling packaging used
on raw materials
Issue:
A variety of packaging is used on raw
materials supplied for the manufacture
of MMC systems such as polythene
sheet/wrap, cardboard, metal and plastic
banding, timber pallets and bearers, plastic
containers (from adhesive and paint) and
paper sacks.
This makes up a large proportion of the
waste stream from manufacturing (up to
50% by weight) and not all of it is being
recovered effectively.
Some of this packaging may be reduced
if it is used in an optimal manner, for
example by using corner edges rather than
full packaging on furniture.
Action:
Work closely with the supply chain to
understand packaging types and any
specific reasons why they are used, then
aim for optimal packaging solutions and
take back schemes. Specify that packaging
on raw materials is either reusable or
recyclable and clearly identifiable.
What next:
Identify the top 50% of raw material
suppliers to MMC manufacturers in terms
of sales and devise a joint action plan for
tackling packaging.
Who to take it forward:
Modular and Portable Building Association
(MPBA), Construction Products Association,
Build Offsite, UK Timber Frame Association
(UKTFA) and British Precast Concrete
Federation (BPCF) with support from BRE
and other appropriate business support
organisations.
10. http://www.redbooklive.com/pdf/BPS2020_Issue_1_1.pdf
11. http://www.thegreenguide.org.uk/page.jsp?id=13
2.
Facilitating reuse
of modules
Issue:
Modules have the potential for reuse,
however, there is currently no system in place
to know how many modules there are, of
what type, where they are located and when
they are likely to be available for reuse.
Action:
Work with system manufacturers to
undertake a scoping study on the possibility
of having a national registration process that
records type and dimensions, manufacture,
usage and location of modules. Such a
system could also include electronic tagging.
If MMC products are complying to the BRE
Product Standard BPS 202010, basic details
relating to the identification of building
systems must be clearly marked on the
product.
What next:
MPBA to work with five key manufacturers
to develop a specification for the scoping
study. Work with BRE to identify appropriate
sources of funding.
Who to take it forward:
MPBA.
3.
Developing supplier
sustainability credentials
Issue:
MMC manufacturers use a large variety
of different suppliers of raw materials and
logistics companies without necessarily
evaluating their sustainability credentials.
Undertaking such an evaluation could help
inform decision making.
Action:
To develop sustainability criteria for the
industry covering key raw materials and
logistics. This will involve evaluating suppliers
in terms of their environmental impacts e.g.
energy and water usage, recycled content,
minimisation and recovery of waste, and
types and choices of transportation and
associated fuel.
Forthcoming standards should also be
considered, such as BRE Global’s Responsible
Sourcing of Materials standard BSS 6001.11
What next:
MMC manufacturers and appropriate
representative bodies, e.g. Build Offsite,
to hold talks with Construction Products
Association and BRE with regards to
environmental assessment of suppliers and
responsible sourcing.
Who to take it forward:
MMC manufacturers.
 Action plan: The way forward for the MMC sector
4.
Maximising recovery of MMC
systems and components at
end of life
Issue:
According to the demolition industry, issues may
arise in terms of recovering MMC systems at
the end of their life, meaning that the majority
would currently be destined for landfill. This is
due to the composite nature of some of the
products used, the value of materials and the
method of assembly and fixing of the systems.
Action:
Determine the recoverability of existing MMC
systems and develop an appropriate strategy
throughout the supply chain to enhance
recovery at the end of life. This is likely to
address issues related to design, specification,
material choice and durability.
What next:
BRE to initially convene workshop with key
industry stakeholders to take this issue forward
with the supply chain and also interact with
policy makers. BRE are in initial discussions
with the NHBC Foundation and the BRE Trust in
terms of developing a funded project.
Who to take it forward:
BRE possibly with NHBC Foundation and BRE
Trust funding.
12. Construction Resources and Waste Platform – http://www.crwplatform.co.uk
5.
Making the right decision for
waste management
Issue:
It is difficult for manufacturers to make an
informed choice about the proposed waste
management route for waste arisings, both in
terms of cost and environmental impact.
Action:
For each key waste arising, develop standard
guidance with regards to selecting the best
practical environmental option, taking into
account cost implications, locations and
availability of facilities.
What next:
Develop improved guidance (and evidence)
on the best practical environmental options
for dealing with key wastes arising from MMC
products.
Who to take it forward:
Business support bodies such as CRWP12
working with appropriate trade bodies affiliated
with the Construction Products Association.
6.
Optimising system design to
reduce waste
Issue:
To reduce waste effectively, manufacturers
need a solid understanding of why the waste
is arising and where in the manufacturing
process. This is often related to the design and
specification of systems. Standardisation will aid
in the reduction of waste and more effective use
of raw materials.
Action:
Review design processes of systems in terms
of waste generation and look at the potential
for producing standardised systems minimising
bespoke elements yet still ensuring customer
choice.
What next:
Individual MMC manufacturers to review their
own processes with support from appropriate
technical bodies.
Who to take it forward:
MMC manufacturers.
 http://www.beaware.org.uk
BeAware is managed by BRE. The project is carried out in partnership with an industry
consortium, led by a steering group chaired by the Construction Products Association. The
consortium includes representative bodies from the timber and woodworking, plastics,
Improving resource efficiency in composites and concrete manufacturing industries, the packaging sector, modern methods of
construction product manufacture construction, construction clients and advisors, waste processors and technical experts.